Lucky Luke (2009) User Reviews (22)

A wasted opportunity

[TheEnigmaticRonin · 4/10 · 30 June 2010]

I must admit I had really high hopes for this one, and to be honest this is probably the best live action Lucky Luke movie I've seen, and I've seen em all. There are some funny scenes, and instances where it pays homage to the source material.

Now.

Cast wasn't bad, specially Billy The Kid, he was spot on, acting was well... alright I'll ...accept, costume could not have been better, seriously a solid 9 out of 10 for costumes, the set was very good, Daisy Town looked fantastic,.... so why such a low rating? if the freaking thing just had a damn plot! Its just random scenes, they "look" pretty cool, but doesn't always serve any purpose, the writing is VERY cheap.

Its like something happens, the music hints its something dramatic/beautiful or even a plot twist, and you don't get it, then it cuts to flashback that shows you why its a twist,(this happens at least twice) its like what if in Fight Club SPOILER ALERT! if Ed Norton is told he is Durden, without establishing the character of Pitt, and then in a cheap flashback its explained that he thought Pitt was Durden all this time(Im aware of that, the flashback actually occurs), but as if its the first and only time we see Pitt. END SPOILER .... and you are never sure what its trying to be. A western, spaghetti western, a spoof, Is it a comedy?, well there is a kid who witness the brutal murder of his parents, and is therefore seeking revenge, but our hero never kills anyone, so what in the holy name of God almighty, is he going to do when he finds the killer? it makes no sense, and the revenge theme is absent throughout the movie except maybe 4 minutes, near the end.

The first half of the movie isn't horrible, the second half on the other hand, is cheap, doesn't make much sense, tries to be clever, and is plain boring.

Its really sad, because it could have been a great film, they had the budget and the actors, what a wasted opportunity, if you are a fan you would be very disappointed, if you are not a fan then you are definitely going to be disappointed, because it wouldn't even have any nostalgic value.

Bof...

[Kassdhal · 4/10 · 22 March 2010]

How to summarize my feelings after having seen this movie? mixed at best... Jean Dujardin is still a great actor and his depiction of Lucky Luke is a true representative of his strengths. The cast is also good and funny. However, the scenario is dubious. The plot is weak, with pieces from various albums being thrown into the mix relatively randomly rather than forming a consistent movie. As a true fan of "Bande Dessinee", it is good to see live version of some of the characters forming the true spine of Lucky Luke but it still feels like some kind of elaborate parody of Lucky Luke rather than a true depiction. Diving into the youth of Luke, with such "tragic" origins feels misplaced too... only the relationship with Belle was a welcome and funny innovation. As a summary: should have been better. Luke, Dujardin, Morris and Goscinny deserve better!

Here our sympathetic cowboy is accompanied by historical roles as Billy the Kid , Jesse James and Calamity Jame

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 17 July 2018]

Based on the classic characters from comic books by Morris and Goscinny , that was never meant to be an accuracy description of the existence in the Far West , but a fun satire or spoof . This amusing and funny film contains an entertaining but absurd plot , western action, crossfire , bits of campy and embarrassing humor , historical inaccuracies , and factual errors. The film deals with the famous fearless gunslinger hero from French comic books , Lucky Luke : Jean Dujardin , who is assigned by the US President to make up Daisy Town ; though , unfortunately, here doesn't appears his likeable dog . There Luke , along with his beloved speaking horse Jollie Jumper , take on dangerous gunfighters as Pat Poker , Billy the Kid : Michael Youn , and about to be hanged , being saved by Calamity Jane : Sylvie Testud and Jesse James : Melvin Poupad . Meanwhile , Luke falls in love for a beautiful girl, Belle : Alexandra Lamy .

This is an acceptable rendition packed with ridiculous situations , anachronisms , noisy action , shootouts , thrills , exaggerated characters , tongue in cheek , and lots of silly humor. Jean Dujardin is pretty well as the gunman who is ordened by the USA President to bring peace to Daisy Town where he has problems .Here Lucky suffers sad records when being a child : Mathias Sandor as young Luke , witnessed the killing of his parents . This Luke character attracted certain controversy for a gunfighter smoker ; however , considered to be one of the most popular French comic books , along with Asterix and Obelix , both of them created by Rene Goscinny . It is usually balancing among Terence Hill/Bud Spencer style movies , Lucky Luke personal drama , goofy humor , Spaghetti Western and guaranteeing gun-play , fights or stunts every few minutes. Amiable but sometimes lumbering Western satire goes on and on about the same premise , as a lot of escenes are superfluous .

The prestigious musician Bruno Coulais composes an attractive soundtrack with catching leitmotif and well conducted . Colorful and sunny cinematography by Stephane Le Parc . The motion picture was professionally directed by James Huth , though it has some flaws and gaps . He is a good writer , producer , and director who has made some decent films , such as Brice 3 , Hellphone , Serial cover , Brice de Nice and Happiness never comes alone .

Other retelling about Lucky Luke are the followings : " Lucky Luke Television series" , 8 episodes, starred and directed by Terence Hill . "Lucky Luke and the Daltons" 2004 by Philippe Haim with Til Schweiger , Ramzy Bedia , Berger , Javivi . And cartoon movie version as "Go west : a Lucky Luke adventure" 2007 ; "the new adventures of Lucky Luke" , "Ballade Del Dalton" 1978 , and "Lucky Luke the intrepid" 1971

Lucky Luke - Style over substance

[beastwarsfan · 3/10 · 13 March 2010]

I'm a Lucky Luke fan, I live in Bulgaria and I've seen and read as much as I could get my hands on here. I adore the cartoons, they are entertaining and stick to the style of the comics. I like the Terence Hill TV series - even that they really look quite different from the comic book character designs, they are entertaining in their own way, and watching Terence Hill is always a delight.

When I got to know that a new Lucky Luke film is in the making I got very excited, and when I saw the trailers I thought it looks great and it's going to be lots of fun and a comic book brought to life.

Well, that was partially true. This film is really great from a visual point of view - camera-work, costumes, sets, makeup... The production design stays as close to the comics as possible. There's an apparent care for detail and the film is an eye candy for sure. It's done on a budget, and it looks great on screen.

But the script... That's where the problem is, and that's what ruins the whole experience. I was excited when I got to know that so many characters will appear in the movie - except for Lucky Luke and Jolie Jumper we have also Pat Poker, Jessie James, Billy The Kid, Calamity Jane... But there is no coherent storyline or straight storytelling. The film is constantly swinging between the goofy comedy, the spaghetti western parody and the personal drama of Luke, presented as an orphan who witnessed the murder of his parents as a kid. There are some obscure scenes which seem to me like just randomly thrown around the script. The film couldn't make me involved, I didn't really care what's happening on screen, and after like 50 minutes I found myself bored and almost forcing myself to see the rest. Nevertheless, there were a couple of funny and cool scenes here and there, I especially love the sequence where Lucky Luke appears for the first time in the beginning of the film.

I feel cheated, because it could have been really an amazing movie, with such a great look, if only they paid more attention to the story itself.

Misguided western

[Wizard-8 · 1 July 2011]

Unlike 99% of the English-speaking population of North America, I have some familiarity with the French "Lucky Luke" comic books. The filmmakers of this cinematic adaptation managed to get some things right. The production values, for one thing, are top-notch. The locations (the film was shot in Argentina) look gorgeous and look like the American west, and the sets are elaborate and eye-catching. Also, the actor chosen to play Lucky Luke was a good choice, looking somewhat like how the character appears in the comics, and has some natural comic talent.

Unfortunately, despite positive points like those, the movie has some serious problems that make me unable to recommend it. For one thing, there is barely a plot here, and things are stretched out to last 105 minutes. There are also some inconsistencies, like how some signs are in English, and others are in French. But what really sinks the movie is its tone. The comics were breezy and amusing, but this movie for the most part plays out in a surprisingly bleak and dark manner. There's no joy or amusement here.

Even if you are curious about how France tries to compete against Hollywood blockbusters, I recommend that you skip this movie and try something better, like "The Crimson Rivers" or even "Don't Die Too Hard".

I was hoping for more

[theolonius · 3/10 · 6 July 2014]

On the bright side, the to date latest installment of Lucky Luke on the big screen can brag with great sets, customes and make-up and even some CGI one wouldn't expect from a movie that was shot on a budget of 27 million Euros (approximatly 36 million Dollars).

The obvious downside is what the movie was widely criticized for: the plot. While it has it's troubles following or even developing a story, some character traits are somewhat disregarding the comic original.

Its biggest problem still is that the movie cannot decide whether it wants to approach a western setting via emphasizing action, drama or comedy. It succeeds in neither of these approaches, leaving the audience unsatisfied. This makes it also difficult to tell which would be the appropriate audience. While the comedic reliefs are definitely hitting the sense of humor of eight year olds, the action and drama parts are far more suitable for older viewers. Or would you want your kids to see one of their comic heroes suffer a psychotic breakdown for murdering people?

The quality of acting varies both with the actors as well as in different scenes. Summed up it could be considered as adequate.

The director has some really interesting shots and angles but keeps overusing them to an extend that completely different scenes on different sets give you the feeling it was the very same scene repeated once more. Less would have been more.

If you are a die hard fan of Lucky Luke, french movies or one of the actors, it can be recommended. If you are looking for a western, a family movie or simply quality entertainment, skip this one.

Nah, not really doing the comic books much justice...

[paul_haakonsen · 3/10 · 4 June 2021]

Sure, I knew that there were a movie based on one of my favorite comic books from my childhood. But I have to admit that it was not one that I was in a rush to get to watch. So as it was, by sheer chance, that I stumbled upon the 2009 "Lucky Luke" movie in 2021, of course I took the time to sit down and watch it.

And this was a swing and a miss from director James Huth. I must admit that I was definitely expecting it to be a bit more than what it turned out to be.

First of all, there was the fact that this was a French movie set to take place in the great untamed wilds of America. Great, yeah, except people spoke French. That was just an issue that I couldn't get past. It just brought the movie down so much to a level where it just was hard to take it seriously.

And then there was the fact that the storyline was just a scrambled mess of random scenes - or at least that is what it felt like. The movie was way too chaotic and in disarray for me to find much of any enjoyment in the storyline. It felt like writers Sonja Shillito, James Huth and Jean Dujardin weren't even sparring and communicating amongst themselves to ensure that what one worked on would be carried on by the next.

It should be noted though that the actor Jean Dujardin - playing Lucky Luke - really was rather well-cast for the role of the comic book lonesome cowboy brought to life on the screen. He had that particular charm about him, and the hair.

There were some interesting enough characters in the movie, some that you'd recognize from the comic books as well. But I was desperately missing the Dalton gang in this movie, and the dog Ratata.

All in all, then the 2009 "Lucky Luke" movie was one that had evaded my radar, and it wasn't a movie that really delivered what I was expecting from it. There were so much potential here, but the storyline was just too erratic and the French language was just a bitter pill to swallow.

My rating of "Lucky Luke" lands on a mere three out of ten stars.

They should have trusted Goscinny

[Jep_Gambardella · 7/10 · 1 February 2010]

The script of the first Astérix movie combined elements from a few different books and it wasn't very successful. Then came the second, which was based in a single book. This was by far the best Astérix movie. The third one was based on one of the books but had a lot of extra stuff thrown in there, and it resulted in a resounding failure. What conclusion can be drawn from this? That you should just trust Goscinny, who was a great writer, and keep your film as close as possible to his material. With this "Lucky Luke" film they picked characters and plot elements from a dozen different books, and the resulting screenplay was a huge mess.

I still enjoyed it, but I think it could have been much better.

huge disappointment

[imdb-4055 · 1/10 · 10 April 2010]

What a boring mess ! A few funny scenes, most of them in the trailers.

Apart from the names of the places and the characters, very little material from the comics.

And, worst sin, the main character is a total impostor, completely different from the "real" LL, the one created by Goscinny and Morris, the one we love since childhood.

The one redeeming feature is the Pat Poker character played by Daniel Prévost, who does a wonderful job as usual.

Specially lame is the whole 'Belle' subplot, probably only added to justify the presence on screen of Dujardin's wife.

Lucky Luke (2009)

[SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain · 6/10 · 26 August 2012]

Lucky Luke is a great character. The comics are fun and funny and usually send up Westerns in amusing ways. This film is rather confusing in its tone. It is still a bit bizarre and cartoonish, with talking horses, people hiding in barrels, and Luke's ability to never miss. But then some of the thematic elements are insanely dark. It starts with the murder of Luke's parents, and at one point he considers suicide after making his first kill, something he swore he would never do. The humour can also be peculiar, such as Luke slapping a woman in the face as it's part of his tradition. That was actually the biggest laugh because it took me completely off guard. The film also has poor pacing, as there isn't one strong plot, but about 5 weak ones. It seems like a TV show edited down into a feature length film, with each segment having a clear beginning and end. Dujardin is great in the role, and gives us a likable cartoon hero that also has depth. The film looks amazing, with sweeping landscapes, brilliant costumes, and some inventive transitions and editing. I didn't laugh as much as I should, but I still enjoyed it, even if just because it had a unique tone.

One of the worst movies Bieber saw

[florian-sticher-160-125934 · 2/10 · 3 May 2019]

Bad story. Bad editing.. not recommend.

Lucky Luke's character is something inbetween the real character and some dull comic strip down.. it's really a waste of time...

Very Funny Film

[devonblue · 9/10 · 27 May 2010]

I had no preconceptions on this film, I just bought the DVD in France as it had English sub-titles, I did not know anything of the book etc. I was rolling about with laughter, and I am hard to please, but this is the best spoof western since Blazing Saddles, and IMHO sometimes beats it. Do let the false prophets deter you, or the "I have read the book brigade", take it for what it is, a western comedy, and you will enjoy it. I am hoping they make a sequel to this, and this time put it on release in England with sub-titles again, and I will buy it without hesitation, it is very imaginative and fresh. If you like Blazing Saddles you should love this too.

First act was cool.. Third act spectacular... Second act was a drag...

[ElMaruecan82 · 6/10 · 22 December 2017]

In 2005, James Huth directed the "Brice de Nice" film with Jean Dujardin, the film met with huge box-office success but it was 'surfing' on the popularity of the character that went suddenly viral in the early 2000's. Brice is a French pop culture icon but the movie had no role to play on that effect. But it worked and since it did, the director and the actor teamed again in 2009 and made "Lucky Luke".

It was a childhood dream for the French actor to portray his favorite hero and there's no debate that he was perfect for the role. Physically, the yellow shirt, black jacket and red scarf were tailor made for Dujardin. It's just a pity that the film doesn't exactly know what angle to take for the hero, it tries to be many things: a revisionist half- drama half-comedy Spaghetti-like Western but the humor it adopts works very sporadically and there's no second act whatsoever. The middle-part of the film feels like a drag and becomes dangerously boring until the film recovers and ends in a very interesting finale.

I avoided "Lucky Luke" for years thinking it would be one of these sorry excuses for star-studded spectacles with big names but no substance, exactly like "The Daltons", a movie I despised. but the beginning had me strangely drawn. It starts with Luke's childhood and the traumatic witnessing his parents' deaths. That was an iconoclast bit I didn't see coming, but why not? I love a movie that challenges itself and tries to take some distance from the original format. I didn't mind Luke's real name being John (logical since Lucky is a nickname) I actually liked it, a director handles his film as he pleases. It was unexpected and daring, the execution is another matter but I liked the approach.

That version of Lucky Luke could have been a drama if it wanted to, or works on a more adult humor like "Rango" did. There's a confrontation between Luke and notorious cheater Pat Poker (Daniel Prevost) that feels pretty atmospheric and Dujardin does look good in the shadows, I was like "am I really watching a Lucky Luke film?" but had the film followed that pattern of weird creativity, it might have been something to be remembered. Now, let me make a chronological leap and say that I thoroughly enjoyed the climactic confrontation in that giant slot machine with Billy the Kid (Michael Youn), Calamity Jane (Sylvie Testud) and Shakespeare wannabe Jesse James (Melvin Poulpaux). It was spectacular in a way that would have made Terry Gilliam proud.

But the problem is in the blatant lack of a second act. The middle features the kind of jokes that wouldn't belong to a film with such a start, like in "The Daltons", the parts with Jolly Jumper talking with the voice of Bruno Salomone were mildly funny but they were TV programs or spoof level. It seems as if the producers or directors thought the film needed more peps or zaniness to work with the audience, maybe they were right since the film did good at the box office, but the result is uneven and perplexing. It's almost as plain as the nose on one face: great beginning, great ending, there's no way you can enjoy the middle, it doesn't even exist, it's just plot points totally disjointed that don't even enhance the film but serve lousy gags on a plastic platter.

It's a real shame because the film had a lot of potential, Dujardin was good and even Michael Youn finds the right note as Billy the Kid (after some overacting in the beginning), this is a film that could have benefited from a better editing and trimming, and less romantic subplot with Alexandra Lamy. It was still the time of their marriage and naturally, you can't watch her without feeling sorry their marriage ended, it seems like her presence was obligatory in every movie her 'Jean' did, I wonder how she feels now about these roles. But she wasn't the worst thing about the film, it is just that some parts were very boring, which is the least thing you expect from the iconic cowboy.

To conclude, "Lucky Luke" tries to be as grandstanding as a Western Spaghetti and plays a bit of revisionism but is victim of its own commercial temptations and ends up being a bit too heavy for its own good. And allow me to borrow that line from Telerama journalist who called it "Western Ravioli", whatever it means, it gives you the idea. I don't often borrow lines but it's too tempting, I couldn't have described the film better.

Lucky Luke: no; Billy the kid: Yes! (Screen)

[leplatypus · 1/10 · 8 November 2009]

This was the choice of the kid and I was pleased to accompany him and made it possible for him. Thanks to him, I have discovered a lot of movies that alone I would never have watched.

About this movie, like their American cousins, French-Belgium comics are adapted for screen: after Asterix, Largo Winch and now the lonesome cowboy. But except Tintin, XIII, Schtroumphs (Smurfs), I never read French-Belgium comics so I can't judge this adaptation and can only tell what I felt:

I find it dark and gritty: Along Spiderman, Daredevil, Batman, this Lucky is a traumatized orphan and seeks revenge and absolution. As I said about "Bad Girls", western is a very restricted genre and there isn't surprises here.

Worst, all the cast is dull: Poupaud? The US President? Sylvie Testud as Calamity Jane? But we aren't in shortage of cool people!

On the other hand, the final is rather enjoyable because the set is cool: This Poker Man shares the same taste as the Joker!

Above all, Michael Youn is irresistible: as the never grown-up he is, he delivers a very funny characterization.

But his name isn't the title, so the movie gets feathers and tar!

Good, but not great.

[Chucky_Jr · 26 November 2010]

A famous cowboy is ordered by the president to clean up a crime-infested town. The town's crime boss is not happy about this and tries to have him killed, which turns out to be quite a difficult task.

The good things about this film must be the great visual style. The sets, costumes and props look great and in some cases a bit cartoony. The camera-work is nice to, lots of use of interesting angles. And the acting is decent as well. It was neat to see some other villains than the Dalton gang used this time. But they do go a bit overboard with the crooks. One of the things why I didn't think the sequels to Batman were as good as the first was that they kept adding more and more villains in each film. And as a result the films become somewhat cluttered and didn't have as good focus on all the characters. That is what happens here to, as this film features Pat Poker, Billy the kid, Jesse James and Phil Defer. (And a cameo by Doc Doxey) Some of these seem more like they were added as fanservice and not because they were crucial to the plot.

There are also some pretty dark parts here which clashes with the more light-hearted and comical ones. Like in one scene you have a child witnessing his parents being shot to death and then later you have a goofy desperado play around with lollipops and water-pistols.

Still, it is probably the best live-action adaptation of Lucky Luke to date. I would recommend this over the Terrence Hill film or Les Daltons, but if we're talking Lucky Luke films in general then I would advise you to check out the animated "Go West" instead.

The most satisfying of live action lucky luke so far

[Artandlife60 · 6/10 · 1 July 2022]

Up to now, more than five movies have been made of Lucky Luke, and I can say that the most satisfying of them is the 2009 version. The story and screenplay have flaws and contradictions are felt, but it is mostly entertaining. The costume design and the scenes are great and Jean Dujardin's acting is wonderful... but the soundtrack is not good.

Very crazy, cartoonish and frenetic

[Elvis-Del-Valle · 7/10 · 11 November 2023]

Many have known Lucky Luke from the animated adaptations that have been made of the original comics and he is another little-remembered childhood character. This live-action adaptation quite respects the visual style and humor of the source material. They knew how to translate the comic material into real life very well with an actor who fits the role of Lucky Luke very well. The soundtrack is even amazing. The production, photography and special effects are also spectacular, perfectly replicating the vision of the comic. A point in its favor is that this film tells the origin of Lucky Luke from the prologue, which adds to the knowledge of the character's past. The drawback here is that the film has too many gags and is too exaggerated with the humor, making the film very fast-paced and difficult to get into the plot. It's a parody with a very cartoony style and feels like a living cartoon. That's something that partly helps the film by respecting the source material, but at the same time makes it difficult to take it seriously when necessary. Adding moments of seriousness and not so many gags would have helped connect more with the film. Lucky Luke is a film that does very well as an adaptation, but as a film it is a somewhat heavy parody. My final rating for this movie is a 7/10.

He's got the looks

[kosmasp · 8/10 · 31 May 2021]

While Terence Hill did his best to encapsulate and embody the role of Lucky Luke (very funny how the french say his name by the way), Jean Dujardin actually has the look down! Especially with the little bit of hair that "hangs" just outside his hat. I really dug what they did here, even if I remember certain things differently from the comics and even if Rantanplan (the dog) is MIA and Jolly Jumper (the horse) can not be heard thinking ... most of the time. But what can you put in here, considering how long the comics where going on for? It is not an easy task to put as much in here as possible.

Having said that, the humor is well thought of and the movie has even some adult themed issues it serves us (plus there are actual bullet wounds - which surprised me a bit to be honest). Funny and action packed, this is probably as close as we can get to a more than decent adaptation of the awesome .. shame the box office did not agree with me ...

The style does it

[jackreyno · 6/10 · 13 April 2019]

Not a good script, but decent actors and a great comical style makes it a one time watch experience.

Weak Script But Great Style

[jasonleesmith6 · 1 September 2011]

I am an American who never really read any Lucky Luke comics. I watched this movie on the strength of its trailer, and the fact that I am an enormous fan of Goscinny's other creation, Asterix the Gaul.

Die hard Lucky Luke fans seem to dislike this movie as being untrue to the comic books, whereas people unfamiliar with the comics seem to enjoy the movie more.

I definitely fall into the latter category. I found the movie to be, generally, very pleasant, very stylish, and well-acted. From what little I know of Lucky Luke's character, I don't think the movie diverged very far from the spirit of the comics. Lucky Luke was given a back-story in the movie, and a fairly dark one, at that. It worked in the movie, I don't know how much it would have upset me, had I been a real fan of the comics.

The biggest fault I found with the movie was that the script was very weak in parts, and felt VERY rushed. I would have liked more time in the beginning of the film, to establish Daisy Town, and Luke's efforts to clean up the town. More time could have also been spent, establishing the character of the villain, Pat Poker. The movie relied on the viewer having past knowledge of many of the character, but in particular, Pat Poker had a very vague character definition.

The settings were wonderful, and the real stand-out, in my mind, was the climax of the movie, which took place in Pat Poker's hideout, It was an absolutely beautiful set, which, for me, was worth the price of admission.

I'm actually pretty surprised that this movie didn't get released in this country. It was a pretty solid action-comedy with good acting, and great style. I found that these positives made up for occasional weaknesses in the writing.

Excellent, excellent, excellent!!!

[james_michaletos · 10/10 · 29 April 2010]

I really enjoyed the movie!!! Lucky Luke was portrayed by a fantastic actor!!! I can't wait for a sequel!! The plot was really strong and the depiction of Wild West was fascinating!! If you haven't seen the movie then hurry! I can't find the words to describe you how awesome the movie was! You'll see many famous and infamous characters from the comic books and you'll surely laugh! There are tons of funny moments! There is a lot of action as well which makes the movie even better! We even discover Lucky's name! *SPOILER* I really liked Lucky's dark childhood! The whole fact reminded me of Batman! It was a real surprise for me to learn that Lucky's name is John! John Luke? Great!

Funny, refreshing, beautifully filmed

[pjgross · 9/10 · 27 June 2021]

Loved it. Completely different from any other 'western'. Go see it, fun for the whole family.